Friday, January 11, 2008

Is Gary Ackerman anti-Christian?

Dear Editor (of the Times Ledger):

A member of the House of Representatives who voted against House Resolution 847 about the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith is logically a prototype of what an anti-Christian is and its potential threat to the security of approximately 225,000,000 Christians in the United States. America was founded by Christians.

The House resolution passed on Dec. 10, 2007 with 372 voting "Yes" and nine voting "No." U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-Bayside) from the 5th Congressional District of New York is one of the nine Democrats who voted against the Resolution, arrogantly challenging Christians to "light a candle" for his soul. Congressman Ackerman therefore betrays himself to be a strong modern-day persecutor of Christians in the United States.

These are the things Democratic Rep. Ackerman rejected: "That the House of Representatives-

1 recognizes the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world;

2 expresses continued support for Christians in the United States and worldwide;

3 acknowledges the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith;

4 acknowledges and supports the role played by Christians and Christianity in the founding of the United States and in the formation of the western civilization;

5 rejects bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide; and

6 expresses its deepest respect to American Christians throughout the world."

It is high time to separate the "goats" from the "sheep" in the halls of the American capitol. And Gary Ackerman is such a congressional "goat." I call on all American Christians to deny Mr. Ackerman and his fellow anti-Christian colleagues in Congress the power to participate in law-making in the coming 2008 congressional elections by voting them out of office with a resounding thud.

30 comments:

So long as the December 25th holiday is officially known as "Christmas" and white men are portrayed in the medallions on the English & Latin language U.S.currency, Policarpio, there's nothing to worry about.

BTW, the United States was founded by gentlemen of the Deist persuasion. There's no mention of Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, or Buddha in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution - none.

Ackerman is right to vote the way he did. In this country, we have separation of church and state. Congress and government should not be supporting or expressing support of any religion, Christian or otherwise.

I really do not want to waste my time trying to explain constitutional law and principles to people who just can't understand them. Try to read Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet if you want to understand the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

Taxpayer, someone who has read the 1st ammendment and is easily more qualified than you to discuss "seperation of church and state" said this about the ammendment:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

-Thomas Jefferson in his Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

James Madison, the primary author of the Bill of Rights, supported Jefferson's take on the 1st ammendment and often wrote about the "total separation of the church from the state."

I don't know about Washington, but I do know that Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson weren't Christian. They were Unitarian (Deist), which is definitely not Christian. They believed in God and the moral teachings of Christ, but did not believe in the divinity of Christ, which is probably necessary for being considered a christian.

In fact, Jefferson wrote the "Jefferson Bible" which is similar to THE Bible, except it leaves out the divinity of Christ, his virgin birth, all his miracles, his accension to heaven, etc.

To all you losers out there. This is not a bill, it is not legally binding, it is a resolution which just states the congress' collective opinion on a subject. The NYC Council has passed more than one resolution supporting Israel in the last couple of years and that is a Religious State. Nobody pissed and moaned back then about separation of church and state. All this was supposed to be was a nice gesture by the congress to a segment of our society that has been feeling persecuted in recent times with the attacks on Christmas and outward displays of such. Rep. Ackerman is not a very savvy politician to take this kind of stance. One day he may need his fellow Christian colleagues support on a resolution to support Israel and I hope they tell him to go fuck himself.

This resolution was just one more example, albeit small, in the campaign by religious extremists (Pat Robertson and his buddies) to make Christianity a dominant force in our government.

Robertson's clan has never accepted the secular nature of American government.

As for the founding fathers, well, James Madison even objected to having a minister recite a prayer at the opening of Congress each day. The founders were products of the Enlightenment. That's why religion is only mentioned once in the Constitution (no religious test for office-holders) and the First Amendment specifically forbids Congress from recognizing any faith as the established religion, or prohibiting any religion from being freely followed.

The historical facts are there. Rep. Ackerman was right in refusing to support this unnecessary and pernicious resolution.

This was a meaningless feel-good bill of the kind Congress passes all the time. I would be shocked if there aren't similar laudatory resolutions praising the historical significance of Muslims and Hindus (maybe not Scientologists). And they don't violate the constitution. These bills do not "establish" a state religion, they do not restrict anyone from practicing a religion, nor do they interfere with George's rejection of same.

The problem is, Ackerman could have just abstained. Or not been on the floor when the vote was taken. He didn't. He affirmatively voted against it. That implies he has a problem with even recognizing the historical relevance of Christianity.

The bill is actually a silly but harmless waste of time. Voting against it, however, is politically dumb.

I don't like his politics at all. But, he once got the IRS to stop bugging me and actually send me a letter of APOLOGY! So I cut him slack.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

-Thomas Jefferson in his Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

So, the concept of separation of church and state IS NOT in the constitution. IT IS in a letter Jefferson wrote.

To all you losers out there. This is not a bill, it is not legally binding, it is a resolution which just states the congress' collective opinion on a subject. The NYC Council has passed more than one resolution

It's time the City Council does less "resoluting" and focus on working to resolve critical issues instead.

I think Gary Ackerman has double standards. If he believes Church and State should be separate , then why did he votes yes for House resolution No.635 favouring Muslims and resolution No. 747 giving preference to Hindu. Why then he did not brought up the issue of Church and State separateion. In Israel constitution, conversion is forbidden . And look how much moneythey draw from USA. Any resolution favouring Israel , He will say yesrightaway. I think Gary Ackerman is hypocritic.Anonymous

Since some are claiming that separation of church and state is not in the Constitution, the answer is, yes it is in the Constitution via the 1st Amendment. Other than historical interest (i.e. psychology of the founders etc) all the amendments to the Constitution are equivalent to the Constitution. The 1st amendment starts: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Well, that does not affect local governments, I guess, but it IS in the Constitution.

However, on to considering the merits of all this. It seems to me superficial to regard a legislative resolution stating respect for Christians (or any other religious group) as being beneficial to our people. I agree with those who say a government should focus on better issues.

If there was ongoing persecution of Christians (or any other legal belief system) that would be different, and government should indeed stand up and protect persecuted groups as part of our democracy.

Which leaves the remaining open question: are some claiming that Christians (or Catholics, or Jews... put in your favorite special group) are being persecuted? There are few groups that are persecuted on a legal basis in this country - and those do not include any legitimate religions, other than perhaps illegal profiling of those suspected of Muslim ties (no, I am not in the least Muslim myself). For that reason, government should advance to REAL issues - there are plenty of those, and important ones!

Spotted a piece of Queens Crap in your community?

Please note

Italicized passages and many of the photos come from other websites. The links to these websites are provided within the posts.

Why your neighborhood is full of Queens Crap

"The difference between dishonest and honest graft: for dishonest graft one worked solely for one's own interests, while for honest graft one pursued the interests of one's party, one's state, and one's personal interests all together." - George Washington Plunkitt

Sites that kick ass:

The above organizations are recognized by Queens Crap as being beneficial to the city as a whole, by fighting to preserve the history and character of our neighborhoods. They are not connected to this website and the opinions presented here do not necessarily represent the positions of these organizations.

The comments left by posters to this site do not necessarily represent the views of the blogger or webmaster.